1^ 

nil 



F 199 
L91 




i^RaUMENT 



MADE IN DEFENSE OF 



BENJAMIN G. LOVEJOY, 



BEFOBE THE 



Coiiimissioiiers of tlie District of (joUjia, 



IN RESPONSE TO 



Certain charges against him preferred by one 
William Birney. 



REGINALD FENDALL, 
R. ROSS PERRY, 

' Of Counsel. 



Thomas McGill & Co., Law Printers, Washingtoo, D. C. 



«i 



Washington City, D. C, 
July 14, 1885. 

To THE Commissioners of the District of Columbia : 

The counsel for Mr. Lovejoy, before they proceed with 
the argument of his case, desire to protest against the par- 
ticipation by Commissioner West, as a judge or in any 
other capacity, in your deUberations or conchisions upon 
the said case. 

As counsel, and individually, we regret to be compelled 
to take this course ; but forced during the taking of the 
testimony to oppose, almost from the outset, the methods 
adopted by i\lr. West, an acquiescence in which would 
have deprived the investigation of all fairness ; and com- 
pelled to see that Mr. West was really the person com- 
plaining of Mr. Lovejoy, although in form the accusations 
were those of Mr. Birney ; and driven to the conclusion 
that the person intended to be attacked is not so much 
Mr. Lovejoy, although his name is alone used, as Mr. J. 
Ormond Wilson^ the late superintendent, — we feel it to be 
our duty to reject Mr. West as a judge in this matter. 

We expect to furnish you with substantial proof of the 
truth of our assertions in this connection. This proof we 
will produce from the records of your office and from the 
testimony taken in this -case before Mr. West himself, 
which testimony he has had sufficient opportunity to deny 
or explain ; much of it, however, has come from his own 
mouth, and out of this he should not object to be judged. 

Mr. West first appeared in this case as distinct from his 
associates in consequence of an order made by the Com- 
missioners that he should take the testimony in the case 
and report his findings of fact. Tliis order was objected to 
by Mr. Lovejoy on the ground that it made Mr. West 



really the judge of the case, and Mr. Lovejoy insisted that 
he had " satisfactory reasons for regarding hira as pre- 
judiced, and hence unfit to adjudicate the findings in the 
case." (See Mr. Lovejoy's letter of June 30th ultimo.) 

On the same day the Commissioners, through Mr. Ed- 
monds, assured Mr. Lovejoy that the testimony taken 
should be referred to a full Board. 

On the 1st day of July (being the next day to this cor- 
respondence) the testimony was commenced. Almost at 
the outset Mr. West interrupted the proceedings, as will 
appear from the record. The situation was this : 

Mr. Birney pubUcly charged Mr. Lovejoy with a certain 
offense, about the nature of which we shall inquire more 
fully hereafter. All that is necessary to consider now is 
that the charge was publicly made and disseminated by the 
press. Mr. Lovejoy had no opportunity of answering these 
charges, public as they had been, until the testimony was 
commenced as above. His counsel then attempted to say 
that they would admit all of the matters of fact alleged in 
the specifications, and further proceeded to declare what 
they understood the charges to be and what answer they 
desired to make to them. This was attempted to be pre- 
vented by Mr. West. Finally, however, he admitted that 
counsel were right, and directed them to proceed with their 
statement. Next thereafter he ofiered a certain letter in tes- 
timony. He was asked by Mr. Perry in what capacity he 
oflt'ered the letter, and whether he ofiered it as counsel ; to 
which Mr, West answered, " I am instructed to make a case." 
Now, counsel do not wish to insist upon the literal meaning 
of the very startling expression, when used by a qaasi-}udge, 
" mstruded to make a case" We of course know that Mr. 
West had no such instructions; nor do we wish to insist 
that Mr. West meant what the words used by him mean. 
We understand that he intended cnly to state that he was 
there for the purpose, not of falsifying the evidence, but 
of looking at the case from one point of view only, and 



of developing the evidence in so far us he could in that 
direction. This is what he meant by ma/dng a case. He un- 
derstood that he was there to do an attorney's pai't, J3y this 
ahiiost unconscious expression of his thoughts and purposes, 
he showed what his intention was ; and as we go on, counsel 
will point out how completely ho was dominated by that 
purpose —so completely that he forgot not only what he 
owed to his position as expectant judge in this case, but 
also what he owed to the office that he held and to his 
colleagues whom he represented there. That Mr. West 
understood at one time that he should be impartial in the 
case, is evident from an expression used by him to a reporter 
of the Evening Star of the Ist instant, when he said " that 
a very unjust effort had been made to make it appear that 
he came into the investigation prejudiced. The only reason 
Mr. Lovejoy's friends had for such an opinion was because 
they knew he was fully acquainted with the record in the 
case." 

The most important matter connected with the behavior 
of Mr. West, to which counsel ask your attention, is the 
series of questions asked, and statements made, by him 
at the sessions of Monday tlie 6th and Tuesday the 7th 
instants in connection with the disposition of the salary of 
Miss Bartlett for the months of January, February, and 
March, 1882. Mr. West first announced that he wanted 
to show a way through which Mr. Lovejoy could escape ; 
that he (West) was convinced that Lovejoy's ignorance 
had been practiced upon by others. Mr. West next pro- 
ceeded to put upon record and to state at this public ses- 
sion, where members of the press were present for the pur- 
pose of reporting the proceedings, and where he was 
sitting as a Commissioner of the District of Columbia, that 
the money then being inquired about, to wit, the salary of 
Miss Bartlett's school for the three months aforesaid, or 
for some portion thereof, had " been stolen from the dying 
girl," and there could be no doubt in the minds of any who 



heard liira that he meant that Mr. Wilson had stolen this 
money. When this statement was, at the next day's ses- 
sion, pronounced absolutely false by 1^-ofessor Cleveland 
Abbe, at whose house Miss Bartlett died, Mr. West did 
not retract this accusation, but insisted that a falsitication 
had been made of the pay-rolls in order to cover the mat- 
ter up. Lastly, when he was asked a certain question by 
Mr. Lovejoy's counsel, after he had gone on the stand as a 
witness, under the guise of answering the question he 
made the following extraordinary statement. This is given 
in full, together with the protest of counsel. 

Mr, West was asked by counsel what charges he had 
been investigating, and Mr. West said that he had been 
investigating certain charges against Mr. Wilson in regard 
to the use of certain money by the latter for the benefit 
of the Normal School. Said Mr. West, in further answer : 

" To get at this matter a little more definitely, the Com- 
missioners were investigating the question of what became 
of the money that was paid to Miss Bartlett in January, 
February, and March, 1882. Mr. Wilson was charged 
with having the money, and it was decided to ask him the 
straightforward question, ' Did you have any such money? ' 
He was asked distinctly, ' Did any such moiiey exist ? ' 
He replied categorically, that ' no such fund exists.' He 
was then asked if any such fund ever did exist ; and it 
was ascertained by the Conniiissioners that on the morning 
of the day that he was asked that question he paid out the 
residue of that money." 

Mr. Perry. " How did you find that out ? " 

Mr. W^EST, " I am making my statement, but I have 
no objection to being interrupted." 

Mr. Perry. " Go on and state as much as 3'ou think is 
necessary." 

Mr. West. " Then Mr. Wilson was asked whether any 
such fund e\er existed. He still denied that such a fund 
ever existed, but that he had the money — a distinction •! 
could never comprehend ; and he goes on in this letter to 
state where he got the money. He got $122 from Miss 
Bartlett; one gentleman thinks that it was given to Mr. 



Wilson entirely voluntarily by Miss Bartlett ; the lady is 
dead; she cannot answer the question; but it is evident 
that the intention of Mr. Lovejoy, that that money should 
contribute to the solace of her last moments upon earth, 
was not carried out ; the money did not go there. Whether 
Miss Bartlett voluntarily turned the money over to Mr. 
Wilson, or whether that resolution of the 14th of March 
last was passed for the purpose of covering up the trans- 
action, those who see the record can judge. On the 14th 
of March last a resolution was passed which was to cover 
up the transaction. That money had been drawn con- 
trary to the statutes of the United States and to usage, 
and it became necessary to have a retroactive act to give 
the lady pay; and upon the passage of that retroactive act 
the money arising from its eifect was paid over to Mr. 
Wilson. What he did with it, and his right to do any- 
thing with it, is a matter for those to judge of who have 
the matter in charge. But as I understand this case, this 
is Mr. Lovejoy and Mr. Wilson on the one side, Commis- 
sioner West and Mr. Birney on the other. This is the old 
system of irregidarity, free from, any intentional collusion 
and bad practices — an accommodatioyi to the teachers. I 
have no object in persecuting anybody; but I do say 
that as long as I hold the position which I do, and profess 
to control these educational matters, every dollar shall be 
accounted for, whether it is spent in a copyrighted school 
book or a worthless hand brush. Those are the things 
that I found it necessary to look into. Whenever any 
trustee iinds it necessary to call in question the acts of his 
co-trustee, or whenever there is brought to the notice of 
the Commissioners facts looking to malpractice, the Com- 
missioners will look into them, notwithstanding the fact 
that the gentlemen think the Commissioners have no 
authority in the premises." 

Mr. Perry. " The counsel for Mr. Lovejoy have listened 
to this most extraordinary statement on the part of Mr. 
Commissioner West which he has interjected into this 
record under the guise of an answer to a question asked 
during his examin^ation, and they wish to enter their pro- 
test against it, lirst, because, under the order of the Com- 
missioners, which gave Mr. West the power to conduct this 
examination there can be found no warrant for any such 
extraordinary statement as that which was made by him ; 



6 

second, because it is an argument which absolutely mis- 
states the facts that have been so far adduced in evidence ; 
third, because it is an abuse of official position for the sake 
of making an attack upon an absent man, which attack is 
based upon absolute misstatements of the testimony which 
has been taken here." 

Mr. Fendall and Mr. Perry, without reference to their 
position as counsel in this case, say that they, as citizens 
and as persons represented in a certain way by Mr. West, 
protest against his conduct in this matter as unworthy 
of his high office and of the people whom he represents. 
As counsel for Mr. Lovejoy, they say that even were they 
convinced that Mr. West could be an unprejudiced judge 
in this case, yet, after their experience in this investigation, 
they could not consent to submit to his judgment the de- 
tei'mination of any question. 

Counsel may seem to use harsh language. It is most 
repulsive to them to use this language ; but they are con- 
vinced that no one can read understandingly what Mr. 
West has said in taking the testimony, or follow the attacks 
made by him over Mr. Lovejoy's shoulders on an absent 
and a sick school teacher, broken in health through his 
devotion to and labors for the schools, and undefended 
here, without reaching the conclusion that counsel are jus- 
tified in their course. 

Counsel will now proceed with the argument of the 
case : 

The charges which were given to the public press 
against Mr. Lovejoy on the 24th day of June ultimo were 
of the gravest nature as published. They alleged falsifica- 
tions made by Mr. Lovejoy of the teachers' pay-rolls. The 
charges and specifications were not published then in de- 
tail, nor have they yet been published, save through the 
testimony taken at the investigation. These charges and 
specifications were long and wordy, and have probably 
been read by few. Mr. Birney's imblished charge was con- 



cise and simple — it was falsification of pay-rolls ; something 
very definite, and signifying to the minds of all who saw it a 
very definite thing. This charge was given to the press, 
and on the morning of the 25th of June it is safb to say 
that in all the principal cities of this Nation it was pub- 
lished that Benjamin G. Lovejoy, of the City of Washing- 
ton, V>. C, stood charged as school trustee with the falsifi- 
cation of pay-rolls, as we have said a very definite and 
easily-understood charge. It would have been a grave 
matter had the publication of this charge been confined to 
the City of Washington where, to those who knew the two 
men, both the character of the accused and of the ac- 
cuser would have refuted the accusation as soon as ut- 
tered ; but this charge was published broadcast, in distant 
cities, and among strangers, to whom Mr. Lovejoy's name 
meant no more than the name of Mr. Birney. Certainly 
this was a grave thing — tliat a man, who had lived a rep- 
utable life in the community in which he was born, should 
suddenly and without notice find himself attacked in his 
integrity and honesty about a matter in which he had 
served the public gratuitously and with much labor, dur- 
ing the best years of his life. Certainly such a charge, 
made in such a way, and by such a person, could only be 
justified by proof of guilt in the sense in which the charge 
was meant to be, and in fact was, understood. 
Now, let us see what the proofs were upon trial : 
As has been said^ counsel for Mr. Lovejoy took the 
earliest opportunity at the investigation of stating his an- 
swer to this charge. Tlie testimony is now before you, 
and counsel assert that not one scintilla of proof has been 
added by the testimony to the statement made by counsel 
on the first day of the investigation. And yet the coun- 
sel for Mr. Birney, refused to receive these admissions, 
and said " we propose to prove our own case in our 
own way." It was not intended to allow Mr. Love- 
joy the opportunity of admitting what was true in the 



specifications. It was intended that he should be put in 
the false attitude of silently standing on the defensive and 
calling for strict proof. It was intended that it should 
falsely appear that the allegations of the specifications 
were denied, that thus Mr. Birney might appear of record 
as proving something. This attempt failed through the 
persistence of Mr. Lovejoy's counsel; and Mr. Birney is 
of record as insisting on the proof of what Mr. Lovejoy 
admitted on the threshold. 

Now follows a matter to whicli counsel ask your atten- 
tion. Mr. Perry's statement is contained in full in the 
record. After it had been concluded, Mr. Birney was 
compelled to admit that he could not prove anything that 
was not there admitted. By his counsel he then said: 

" Mr. Lovejoy was not accused of taking money. There 
was no criminal charge against him. As a trustee, Mr. 
Birney had deemed it his duty to call the attention of the 
Conmiissioners to the fact that it was the practice of some 
trustees to certify pay-rolls which did not represent the 
truth. To give public charity he did not think was the 
duty of a trustee." 

Counsel have quoted the words of Mr. Birney's counsel 
with great care, because when they were uttered it seemed 
to Mr. Lovejoy's friends that there must have been some 
misapprehension on the part of Mr. Birney as to the true 
case. They could hardly believe that any one would de- 
liberately charge a man of previous good character in the 
public press with so grave a charge as the falsification of 
pay-rolls, simply because there existed a diit'erence of 
opinion as to the proper names to be entered on the pay- 
rolls, and where there was no question of any criminal or 
dishonest motive, but only, as Mr. Birney's counsel states, 
a question of what he calls charity. It did not seem possi- 
ble thatanj^ man of sound understanding could deliberately 
adopt the method of a criminal charge to settle this ques- 
tion. There were so manj* other methods of determining 



9 

a dispute of tliis kind that to suppose any one to deliber- 
ately resolve to do what in him lay to brand the character 
of another man, no matter how unfriendly to him person- 
ally, in this way, was to suppose that Mr. Birney, acting in 
this way, had the malice of a na.ture inherently crimimd, or 
that he was disordered mentally. 

Let us now consider exactly what the whole record 
shows to be the facts underlying the inquiry ; the motives 
of those who have urged the inquiry can be briefly con- 
sidered afterwards. 

The facts undeniably established about Miss Bartlett's 
school, and which ai'e the gravamen of the first five speci- 
fications, are these : Miss Bartlett was a teacher of unusual 
ability, and character. Her health failing, she had given 
up a school of a higher grade, which she taught with great 
success, and had in the latter part of the year 1881 taken 
charge of a school of young children in the "Franklin 
Building," the same building in which the Normal School 
is tiiught. This school was a model of its kind ; and the 
pupils of the Normal School, themselves preparing to 
teach, often were sent by their principal. Miss Smith, to 
observe the methods used by Miss Bartlett with such suc- 
cess. In December Miss Bartlett was so much worse that 
she was invited by the father of one of her pupils, who took 
an interest in her, to come to his house. This she did, and 
there she died. In January, 1882, she was not able to 
teach, but she did teach, and continued to do so until 
about the middle of that month, when her will ceased to 
be able to compel her body to that exertion from which its 
physical weakness had for a long time shrunk. Professor 
Abbe at first asked for leave of absence for her without 
pay; and this was granted. It was afterwards suggested 
by some friends that under the rules she could employ a 
substitute, and thus receive some part of her pay, and at 
the same time retain her connection with the school in 
which she took so deep an interest and the separation 
2 



10 

from which so distressed her. This was discussed by Mr. 
Lovejoj, Mr. Wilson (the late principal), Miss Smith, and 
others, and it was agreed that such a course was author- 
ized by the rules, sanctioned by precedent, and a kindness 
that might properly be shown by the school officers with- 
out departing from their strict duty. There were certain 
of the Normal School pupils who had very successfully 
taught in Miss Bartlett's school as a part of their own 
education, as explained above. These pupils, among 
whom was Miss McQueen, whose name appears on the 
fourth and fifth specifications, accordingly, under the im-- 
mediate direction and advice of Miss Smith, took charge 
of this school, and taught it until the end of the scholastic 
year in June, 1882. 

It is not denied by Mr. Birney, and it is affirmatively 
proved by Mr. Lovejoy, that the rank of Miss Bartlett's 
school was preserved at its former high standard during 
the time that these pupils had it in charge. It cannot there- 
fore be, nor is it pretended, that the interest of this school 
or of the pupils attending it at all suffered from what was 
done in that school from January 1st, 1882, until the close 
of the school year. Tlie pupils were well taught and the 
money of the teacher was well earned. It cannot be pre- 
tended that what was done was done secretly. The course 
pursued was decided upon after consultation between Mr. 
Lovejoy, Mr. Wilson, and Miss Smith, with the knowledge 
of Professor Abbe and of others. It cannot be pretended 
that it was against the rules of the school, for at that time 
Rule 42 read as follows: 

Rule 42. 

"1. In case of the absence of any teacher on account of 
sickness or other justifiable cause for not exceeding one 
day the school ipay be closed. 

" 2. In case of longer absence, or where the absence is 
likely to be of longer duration, the teacher may furnish a 



11 

substitute, provided that the person selected be satisfac- 
tory to the supervising principal, superintendent, or local 
trustee having special charge of the school. 

" 3. In case the absentee does not elect to provide a 
substitute, he or she shall forthwith notify, or cause to be 
notified, the supervising principal, superintendent, or local 
trustee, whose duty it shall be to employ a substitute; and 
such substitute shall be paid by such absentee an amount 
equal to one-half of his or her salary during the time that his 
or her place may be tilled ; and written evidence of such pay- 
ment shall be tiled with the Committee on Accounts prior 
to the auditing of the salary account of said absentee for 
the month next succeeding the termination of service of 
said substitute. 

"4. Teachers now in the employ of the Board, by con- 
tinuing, and those hereafter to be employed, by accepting 
service will be understood to agree to this rule. 

" 5. Persons who hold or shall obtain certificates from the 
Committee on Teachers, and notify the superintendent of 
their readiness to serve as substitutes, and do so serve suc- 
cessfully, as opportunity otfers, shall have preference, next 
after graduates of the Normal School, in appointments to 
the corps of teachers." 

Of the matter of precedent we will speak later. The 
money earned during the months of January, February, 
and March— 1150 (being at the rate of |50 for each month) 
— was paid to the sick teacher, Miss Bartlett. This is sworn 
to positively by Professor Abbe, at whose house she was 
and where she died. Miss Bartlett was too conscientious 
to keep more of this money than she actually earned, and 
either she or her sister gave to Mr. Wilson about |125 of 
this, being all that she received, less the salary for about 
one-half of the month of January, which she earned her- 
self. Of the sum so given, about $50 or |55 were applied 
to her burial expenses. The salaries for the months of 
April, May, and June were drawn by Miss McQueen, 
making in all $120; and this sum was added to that re- 
ceived from Miss Bartlett, making in all about $240. The 



12 

testimony shows approximately how this was expended, 
to wit: 

For renovating grand piano (property of 
the District) 

For moving piano, music, &c., at exhibition 
of school 5 

For Miss Bartlett's funeral expenses 50 

For apparatus for the Normal School 80 

This completes the history of the first live specifica- 
tions. It is in part on this state of facts that the charge 
of Mr. Birney was published. These facts were admitted 
in the opening statement, and they are shown by the 
proof to be as admitted ; nothing more. Counsel do 
not purpose making any argument about them, save 
to hereafter refer to certain precedents in the schools 
which would justify all engaged in this matter in claiming 
that they had not even been irr regular, according to the 
most technical construction of the rules. But the charge 
here is — tlie charge published to the world is — falsification 
of paj'-rolls. Counsel ask you as honorable men, having 
reputations wliich are dear to you, is it not an outrage on 
Mr. Lovejoy that, for what he did in this matter, he should 
have been thus dealt with by this false accuser? Ought 
such a man as this one, whose malice is so bitter or whose 
nature is so perverted, ought such a man as Mr. Birney 
here appears be to continue trustee of the schools ? 

Permit us to say a few words in behalf of Mr. Wilson, 
whom we do not represent, and who is absent and physi- 
cally disabled through his labors in behalf of our schools, 
and who has the confidence of the most reputable citizens 
of Washington in every way, both as to intelligence and 
integrity of the strictest kind; a man respected of all 
the teachers, and who had so endeared himself to the 
children that the mention of his name at the late com- 
mencements made their hands try to tell what their hearts 
felt for him, — permit counsel to say of him, as citizens and 



13 

lawyers who have studied this case, that there is notliing 
either developed or hinted at in the testimony, save what 
is much to his credit; that he appears to have acted in 
the case of Miss Bartlett, in which Mr. West has made so 
unwarranted an attack upon him absent, in the most hon- 
est and manly way. 

There are two other matters to which we wish to call 
your attention in connection with the case of Miss Bart- 
lett's school. This school was thoroughly investigated by 
Mr. West himself as to the time when Miss McQueen 
signed the pay-rolls in April, May, and June of 1882, in 
connection with Mr. Wilson. The result of that investi- 
gation is well known to you. In order, however, to re- 
fresh your recollections, we desire to insert here the letters 
of Mr. Edmonds and of Mr. West to Mr. Wilson, wM-itten in 
October, 1884, and a part of this record. They read as 
follows : 

" 1625 K Street N. W., 
" Washington, D. C, October \st, 1884. 

" Mr. J. Ormond Wilson. 

"Dear Sir: General West tells me the young lady 
teacher understands the payment made by her to yon to 
have been purely voluntary on her part, and in all respects 
as you understood it. 

" As the story came to the General, the lady understood 
it differently, which would iiiake quite a different case. 

'=As it is, there is nothing to be said, except that the case 
is another illustration of the ease with which simple mat- 
tei-s are outrageously distorted as they go through town. 

"The General will doubtless write you to similar effect. 
" Very truly yours, 

"J. ^. Edmonds." 

"Office of the Commissioners, 

" District of Columbia, 
" Washington, October 2d, 1884. 
"Dear Mr. Wilson: As by the understanding had with 
the Commissioners at our interview with you yesterday, 



14 

I called upon Miss McQueen, and the version obtained 
from her as to her salary as teacher, April to June, 1882, 
was the same as given by you, viz., that her compensation 
as such teacher was voluntarily turned over to you, in order 
that a piano which was used by the whole school might be 
repaired. 

''I beg to assure you that upon investigation no reproach 
rests upon you or upon any other person connected with 
the schools in respect to the pay of Miss McQueen or of its 
disposition. 

"This letter is written with the knowledge of my col- 
leagues, and meets their mdorsement. It will be made 
official, if you so desire. 

"Very respectfully yours, 

"J. R. West. 

'^ Hon. J. Ormond Wilson, Supt Schools.''^ 

Now, counsel are unable to persuade themselves that 
Mr. West did not at that time also inquire into the months 
of January, February, and March; but if he did not in- 
quire, it is difficult to understand how any one could be so 
convinced about the propriety and regularity of what 
happened in that school in the three latter months, and yet 
insist, as Mr. West seems to, that the three earlier months 
are so blamable in their history. 

One other matter : Mr. West was examined as a wit- 
ness by Mr. Birney's counsel with respect to the time 
when the charges and specifications in this case were 
first presented to him by Mr. Birney. Mr. West testi- 
fied substantially that Mr. Birney brought the charges 
and specifications to him in the same shape in which 
they now are, save that there were only five of them — 
Mrs. Rodiers' case not being included — in March of this 
year; that he urged Birney not to present them, on 
the ground that it would simply create scandal ; that Mr. 
Birney acquiesced in this suggestion, and withdrew the 
charges. Counsel cannot perceive that the addition of 
charge with respect to Mrs. Rodier could materially alter 



15 

the judgment or advice of Mr. West, acquiesced in by Mr. 
Birney in March last. The inquiry then is, Wiiat niotive 
now urges these gentlemen on, when in March they both 
conchided that it would he injudicious and improper to 
present these charges? 

The remaining specification is in relation to Mrs. Kodier, 
and can be briefly stated, together with the history oi" the 
case, thus: 

Mrs. Maria E. Rodier commenced the career of a school 
teacher in this city when she was seventeen years of age, 
and since the year 1849 she has been continuously con- 
nected with the public schools here as a teacher. As the 
standard of the schools has been developed, and as modern 
and improved methods of teaching have been introduced, 
Mrs. Rodier has, with great industry and with commend- 
able ambition, qualified herself — although educated under 
the old methods — to still compete with the younger teach- 
ers, wlio had the advantage of more recent instruction and 
of acquiring new methods with greater readiness than can 
be commanded by those whose early instruction has been 
of an entirely diflerent sort. So well has Mrs. Rodier 
persevered in this difficult course, that her school retained 
the excellent standard that she had at first given to it, 
despite advancing age on iier part and innovations in the 
methods of teaching with which she had to struggle hard 
to keep place. In the year 1881, Mrs. Rodier voluntarily, 
and without suggestion from anyone, determined to employ 
an assistant, whom she paid out of her own salary, to aid 
her in her work. This assistant has been continuously with 
her since, and is now the teacher of this school. Mrs. 
Rodier's first purpose in employing her was to have her do 
certain work at the black-board which required more phy- 
sical agility than she possessed. As the months went by 
and brought their own burden with them, this assistant 
teacher took the place of the principal to a gradually 



16 

greater extent, until fimilly in November last Mrs. liodier 
ceased her active work. 

We wish to call attention, first, to the fact that in this 
case, as in that of Miss Bartlett, it is not suggested that 
the standard of this school has not been kept up ; that is 
admitted without question ; and the former assistant, Miss 
Blackiston, is now the teacher of this school. Here, then, 
is no pretense that the interests of the school or of the 
pupils attending it have at allsutiered. On the contrary, it 
is admitted that the standard of this school is higher than 
the average; so that the public has suffered no loss. Here 
is no question with respect to the compensation. It is con- 
ceded that Mrs. Rodier drew her salary regularly and paid 
her assistant, as the assistant confesses. 

The question of regularity under the rules is not difficult 
to determine. This is not the case of a substitute, for a 
substitute, by force of the term, takes the place of the prin- 
cipal. Tliere cannot be a teacher and a substitute doing 
duty at the same time in the same school ; but, from the 
evidence, there can be no doubt that Mrs. Kodier has been 
at her school daily, with few exceptions, until the month 
of November last. The rules are silent with respect to as- 
sistants, save in the eighth grade, where a sub-assistant is 
provided for ; but this, it is conceded, has no application 
here. The question presented by this case of Mrs. Kodier 
is as follows: The rules neither permit nor refuse the em- 
ployment of an assistant. Can an assistant ever be properly 
employed when the rules are silent on the subject? 

Now, while this might properly be made the subject of 
discussion at a meeting^of the school board with reference to 
an enlargement of the rules or a greater strictness in defini- 
tion on their part, it can hardly be urged that the employ- 
ment of an assistant, while the rules remain as they now 
are, would furnish ground for a criminal charge ; and yet 
this is exactly what the charge is here— that Mr. Lovejoy" 
falsified the pay-rolls, in that he certified that Mrs. Rodier 



17 

earned her money, when in point of fact the services were 
rendered by her and her assistant, and later by the as- 
sistant almost entirely. These are the facts in Mrs. Rodier's 
case. 

Now, inasmuch as the pay-rolls and their alleged falsifi- 
cation are often mentioned in this inquiry, it will be well 
to understand exactly what connection Mr. Lovejoy has 
with them, and the counsel will call attention to certain 
precedents illustrating the course of procedure with respect 
to these rolls. 

The public-school teachers of the District of Columbia 
are paid their salaries monthly. There are certain divisions 
of these schools, and each division has a supervising prin- 
cipal, who has immediate charge thereof, and who prepares 
the certificate each mouth, giving the names of teachers 
and their salaries. The accuracy of this list as to matters 
of fact is vouched for by the principal of eacli district. It 
would be physically impossible for the chairman of the 
committee on teachers to go over and verify all of the lists 
from all of the divisions every month. This certificate of 
the supervising principal is certified to in turn by the super- 
intendent and the chairman of the committee on teachers — 
Mr, Lovejoy. Formerly, the trustees performed the duties 
of supervising jjrincipal, and then he properly signed the 
pay certificates, and vouched as to their correctness as to 
matters of i'act contained in them ; but since the introduc- 
tion of the supervising principals (about twelve years ago) 
they have been looked to as vouchers for the statements 
of fact in the pay-rolls contained. 

Now, this certificate prepared by the supervising princi- 
pal in each district, and then signed or certified by the 
superintendent and by Mr. Lovejoy, is taken to the 
finance committee, and the pay-roll is made from that, and 
this pay-roll is not signed or seen by Mr. Lovejoy. 

With respect to the case of Miss Bartlett's school, this 
circumlocution office business made no difierence at all, 
3 



18 

for Mr. Lovejoj knew all about her case from the outset, 
and certified t6 the list of the principal, well knowing 
all the facts. But in regard to Mrs. Rodier's case, Mr. 
Lovejoy relied, as from the necessity of the matter all 
have to rely, on the supervising principal. He did not 
know that Mrs. Rodier had an assistant when he renom- 
inated her in 1883, nor did he know it in 1884, when he 
again renominated her, in accordance with the custom of 
renominating all teachers who appeared to have done their 
duty during the preceding year. It was not suggested to 
him that Mrs. Rodier had to have an assistant. Counsel 
speak of this in order to have the system understood. Mr. 
Lovejoy does not wish to shirk any responsibility properly 
resting upon him, and he is free to say that in view of the 
exceptional features of Mrs. Rodier's case, and as the rules 
did not prevent the employment of an assistant, he would, 
had he been consulted, have done all in his power, satis- 
fied that the school was keeping up its high standard, to 
avoid casting out a woman who had given all the strength 
of her youth and prime to the schools — he would have 
avoided throwing her aside as a worn-out, useless thing 
could he possibly have done so. 

To resume, then, so far as the pay-rolls are concerned, 
Mr. Lovejoy did not sign or see them, and his name was 
not on them, nor did he have anything to do with them. 
The monthly certificates were signed, or rather approved, 
by him in the case of Mrs. Rodier on the faith of the su- 
pervising principal's certificate, and in the cases of Miss 
Bartlett and of Miss McQueen with a full knowledge and 
approval of all the facts. 

The matters proved, then, in this whole investigation 
are those, and those only, that were admitted at the outset 
by Mr. Lovejoy's counsel, to wit: 

Mr. Lovejoy certified that in January, February, and 
March, 1882, Miss Bartlett rendered services as teacher in 
her school. This was not true in point of fact, as Mr. 



19 

Lovejoy knew. The services during these months were 
rendered by substitutes — Miss McQueen and others. But 
the untruth is only in form ; for under the rules and the uni- 
versal practice then the teacher's name was always signed 
to the pay-roll, although the whole service was rendered by 
a substitute. This is done to-day in all of the Departments 
of the General Government in numerous cases. The reg- 
ular appointee signs the pay-roll, although the services may 
be rendered for months at a time by substitutes. In the 
case of the public schools, this matter was perfectly under- 
stood, for in September, 1882, the Commissioners, through 
their secretary, called the attention of the school trustees 
to an opinion of the First Comptroller of the Treasury in 
regard to this very practice. The matter was referred 
by the trustees to a committee, and they reported that they 
found no reason to change anything with respect to the 
pay-rolls. You will find the report of this committee, to- 
gether with the minority report of Mr. Birney, in the min- 
utes of the Board of Trustees for September 28th, 1882. 
The School Board adopted the report of the committee, and 
the certificates remained as before the Comptroller's opinion. 
Moreover, the uniform practice prior to November, 1882, 
was to use the name of the teacher on the pay-roll, and not 
that of the substitute, for obvious reasons, principally be- 
cause the name of the teacher was the one known to the 
authorities. This teacher might have at different times 
one or more substitutes, whose names would not be on the 
rolls of the schools, and who were strangers to the account- 
ing officers and to many of the school officials. Their 
names had no place on the rolls, provided they were ac- 
ceptable to the teachers whose work they performed and to 
the immediate superior of that teacher, and were paid 
their compensation. They had no further part in the 
school economy, and there was no reason why their names 
should appear. If any teacher employed substitutes too fre- 



20 

quently, that became a matter for the attention and report 
of the supervising principal of that district. 

Counsel produced certain witnesses at the hearing, to 
wit, ex-Trustee White and Supervising Principal Gage, to 
prove certain instances, notably those of Miss Ella Dunn 
(whose name was signed to the rolls and who drew pay for 
months until she died, a substitute doins: her work) and of 
Miss Childs, whose case occurred recently, and the case of 
Mr. Gage himself, whose name appears on the certificates 
and pay-rolls in Mr. Birnej^'s own division as having done 
all the work in April, 1885, although for a few days of that 
month his place was supplied by Miss Wroe, and he drew 
all the pay for that month and signed the roll. Some 
time further back (in 1882,) Mr. Gage was sick for 
more than a month, he being then, as now, supervising 
principal; the certificates and rolls for that time have his 
name only, although his work was done by substitutes. 
Counsel made a mistake in calling these cases precedents; 
they find that the universal rule was what Mr. Lovejoy 
followed, to wit, that prior to November, 1882, the name of 
the teacher always appeared, and was the only one that did 
appear, in the certificates and the rolls, although the actual 
service was for months rendered by substitutes. That 
this was well known to Mr. Birney when he preferred these 
charges and to Mr. West when he received them, there can 
be and is no doubt. 

Under the new or moral rules, as they are designated by 
Mr. West (as appears from his statement a few pages back), 
which he and Mr. Birney are contending for in this assault 
upon Mr. Lovejoy's character, under this system it appears 
that the certificates are on their face as far from the absolute 
truth as they ever were. Formerly, these rules were under- 
stood to mark out the way in which the school accounts should 
be settled. It was not thought that they were perfect, or that 
they could in the nature of things be entirely accurate in 



21 

the respects brought into prominence here. The new rules 
are professed to be strictly honest, Messrs. Birney and 
West being sponsors ; yet it appears that these rules do 
not state the exact truth, first, because they are made up 
before the first of the month, generally about the middle, 
and yet they profess to certify that certain work has been 
done by certain persons up to a day, which is generally 
about twelve days ahead of the certificate in point of time. 
It is said that they are made up subject to correction, and 
for the convenience of the teachers. But what has that to 
do with the claim of superior sanctity made by these 
sponsors? In point of fact, in the case of Mr. Gage, who 
did not do the work for the whole month of last April, 
they were not corrected so as to speak the truth, nor does 
Miss Wroe's name — she did part of the work — appear on 
them. It is said that the rules allow the names of the 
teachers to appear only alone when they have done more 
than half a month's work. This is very proper. So did 
the old rules allow the teacher's name to appear, although 
he or she had not done work for months. The new rule 
may reduce the time of the untruth, but the inaccuracy is 
as great for five days as for fifty, so far as the truth is con- 
cerned, and it does not become the sponsors of these rules 
to dress themselves in Sunday attire when these children 
of theirs have to tell even such a little lie. In sober, 
common sense these rules, like all others made for the ac- 
tual conduct of life and its concerns, are not perfect ; nor 
are they understood to be. It is only when they claim to 
be such that they injure both their parents and the system. 
There remains one case to which we ask especial atten- 
tion. This is the case of the drill-master of the High School. 
It ap[)ears froin the testimony that Captain Burton Ross, 
of the Washington Light Infantry, was employed to in- 
struct the High School cadets in tactics, at a salary of |25 
per month. At the end ot the first month, when Captain 
Ross had signed the pay-rolls, it appeared that, inasmuch 



22 

as he was already in Government employ, he could not 
receive two salaries. It was then sug^^ested that a High 
School pupil, a Mr. Frederick Sohon, should sign the rolls 
aiid draw the money, and then it could be paid to Captain 
Ross. This was done with the full knowledge of Mr. West, 
at whose suggestion we are not prepared to say ; but Mr. 
West knew all about it. He knew, further, the force that this 
instance had in this case, for he hastened to claim that 
Sohon was instructor and Ross only coach. When Ross 
drew the money in September or October last he was in- 
structor, and got $25 per month for that. When it was 
found that he could not sign the pay-rolls, then he became, 
as Mr. West says, "coach," (for a graphic description of 
what he understands to be the duties of a coach in action, 
we refer to his own words on page ,) and Sohon be- 

came instructor. The change was, however, one of name, 
and not a financial change, for Captain Ross still got the 
monthly salary of |25. After this recent instance the com- 
plaint of Mr. West about irregular pay-rolls culls to mind 
what we used to read about in college of the Gracchi com- 
plaining of sedition. Let us state here as a matter of jus- 
tice, since we have been compelled to mention the names 
of Captain Ross and of Mr. Sohon in this connection, that 
not the slightest blame can rest upon them in this matter. 
Counsel have tried with patience and with no more com- 
ment than the case required to review both the charges 
and the proceedings in the case at some length. They 
have tried to do so fairly and to make no inaccurate state- 
ment. If they have made such, it can be very readily cor- 
rected by the record, which you have before you. Let us 
now say a few words in conclusion, and then we will leave 
the matter with you to deal with, as honorable men who 
have undertaken to act as judges in this case, at the request 
of a man who says that he has been most unjustly and 
maliciously assailed with a most base charge for conduct, 



23 

that be thought was certainly not blamable, iti connection 
with an institution to which he has given much time and 
thought, and the welfare of which is very dear to him. 
The case submitted to you is this: 

Mr. Benjamin G. Lovejoy, an old resident of this city 
and one of good repute among liis fellow-citizens, has been 
charged ostensibly by Mr. Birney with the falsification of 
the pay-rolls of the public schools. This charge has been 
published in the press of the country, and Mr. Lovejoy 
has been branded as a falsifier of records, which, as trus- 
tee, he was bound to protect. Undoubtedly the impression 
made upon the minds of those reading the published charge 
is that Mr. Lovejoy has corruptly falsified the school rec- 
ords. His defense, or a correct knowledge of the charges, 
will not reach one out of every thousand of those who 
have read the charge. A harm has been done him which 
no remedy can atone for or palliate. Aiid this has been 
done to him about the public schools of Washington, to 
which he has, without compensation, given the best years 
of his life both in time and in thought. All the worth of 
his nature lias been lavished by him over these schools. 
Such is the charge which has been made against him and 
such are its effects. 

What has he done to deserve this ? 
Li Miss Bartlett's case he followed the precedent in ap- 
proving certificates which enabled her to draw the salary 
of the school for three months before her death. He did 
this in accordance wnth the rules, and with precedent, and 
with the knowledge of all of the school officials who were 
in any way concerned in the matter. What he did has 
been sustained by all who were connected with it. 

In the matter of Miss McQueen, what he did has been 
months ago examined and approved by the Commissioners, 
as is not controverted. What lie did in the case of Mrs. 
Kodier was to certify that a teacher had done her work, 
although in point of fact she had been assisted in that 



24 

work bj an assistant teacher — a thing not forbidden by the 
rules. Now, this is the whole of the charge. It is con- 
fessed that he received no luonej' or gain of any kind for 
any of his acts. 

The most that is suggested by the counsel for liis accuser 
is that he has been trying to do charity at the expense of 
the school ; and the proof shows this charge oven to be 
false. Let us state the case briefly another way : 

Mr. Lovejoy,in January, 1882, (he being then a school 
trustee,) had a certain case brought to his attention. It 
was that of a Miss Bartlett, an orphan, who, despite con- 
stant ill-health and lameness from childhood, had yet per- 
severed in her studies in the public schools here, and had, 
by au energy which seemed almost unnatural in contrast 
with the feeble body which it animated, succeeded in win- 
ning for herself a foremost position at her graduation. 
Unable to take needed rest by reason of the daily neces- 
sities of bread-earning for herself, and partly for others, 
she commenced her career as teacher in one of the schools 
here, and in a short time she had made that school a 
model, as she made everything that she touched. But her 
will could not do everything. Under the constant labor 
which she forced herself to discharge, her strength failed, 
and she had to give up her regular school and to take one 
for small children sitting for a half day only — this also 
taught right under the eyes of the superintendant of the 
Normal School and of the general superintendant, she made 
so excellent that the teachers who saw it and knew of her 
methods of work used to exhibit it, and the pupils study- 
ing to teach went there to learn from this sick, lame, dying 
girl how to do their work well. This woman's work and 
history have been somewhat dwelt upon because it is pleas- 
ant to know that all who came in contact with her were 
impressed with the lesson taught by her determined strug- 
gle to do her duty in spite of disease and many physical 
hindrances. It is a pleasure to turn aside from the malice 



25 

that prompted these charges against the man who wanted 
to help her, to the lesson of her life. When we come 
across such traits of character in every-day life, and iind 
how they procured for this woman love and the death-bed 
of home in a stranger's house, we think better of human 
nature, despite this case which brings her to our notice. 

Now, in this matter, all that Mr. Lovejoy did was to ap- 
prove the certificate allowing her to draw the pay that her 
substitutes earned. It could not be called charity, for she 
was rightfully entitled to all that he did for her. What 
Mr, Lovejoy did for Miss McQueen nominally in this same 
connection has been pronounced by you after inquiry to 
have been well done. What he did in Miss Rodier's case 
has been explained in full. It cannot be called charity. 
It was what under the rules she was entitled to. So 
that Mr. Lovejoy in these three matters about which he is 
accused has really done nothing. Yet he has been in- 
famously accused of crime. You cannot hesitate to pro- 
nounce him innocent ; but what redress will that be to him ? 
You will not have read this argument without being con- 
vinced that it is not intended merely as a vindication of 
Mr. Lovejoy. The reading of the specifications will have 
satisfied you of his innocence. No argument was necessary 
to defend him. So soon as the accusation was plainly stated, 
it was seen that it was meant to be a base, malicious lie. 
Counsel have not been concerned with that. They have 
been impressed with the enormity of this whole matter. 
They have wanted to know who was behind this charge so 
wantonly made with the full knowledge of its falseness, both 
on the part of the accuser and of Mr. West. They have 
gone over the whole matter in detail to answer that inquiry. 
It touches the best interests of all good citizens to know who 
the men are who are willing to gratify their purposes either 
of revenge or of turning aside public attention from their own 
records at a critical period, by making a charge of this kind 
against a kind-hearted, honest, self-sacrificing man — one 
4 



26 

who has done much to serve the public without compensa- 
tion ; one who is liimself no longer in the full strength of 
manhood ; one whose name is endeared to very many to 
whom his good-will has overflowed in substantial acts of 
kindness — it touches all of us to know who the men are 
who wantonly charge this man with forgery. Mr. Birney 
is only the puppet. When he shall have been deprived of 
his factitious individuality as trustee, there will remain 
nothing of him that an honest man will care to investigate. 
But who is behind him ? When we know who it is, we 
need inquire no further; for any person who would be 
behind Birney pushes forward a sign-board as to his own 
character. 

Reginald Fendall, 
R. Ross Ferry, 

Of Counsel. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



014 310 456 4 



I 



"¥ 






